PDA

View Full Version : Lesser of 2 evils... locked FM or not locked FM?



XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:18 PM
I sometimes wonder, with all the FM debate going on, if it wouldn't have been better to allow folks to somehow input their own data for aircraft. I know this would open up the IL2 world to all kinds of questionable performance... but it would also give the honest folks out there (squadron mates and whatnot) the ability to go with the data that they feel best represents the capabilities of an aircraft.

Over the last couple days I've noticed a good number of posts in which folks seem to have resigned themselves to the fact that the flight model for their favorite aircraft may never be right. This is a bad sign... if we just decide to settle for what has been given to us, whether we think it's correct or not, it probably means that this game is already on the downward slide to the shelf in the closet with all the other old flight sims.

Would interest in IL2:FB be maintained for a longer period of time if people felt they could get the most realistic performance from their aircraf? If Oleg and his team aren't able to open up the FM to the average user... is there some general performance data that we can use that would make everyone happy (manufacturer's data vs. post-war evaluation, etc.) What would renew people's faith in the modelling of these aircraft?

I didn't realize that FM could be so subjective... and I see many disappointed people on the boards these days. I just want this game to be the best it can be... and I'd like to think that objectivity would guide the design of the IL2 aircraft. If it doesn't then we might as well be playing Crimson Skies...

There has to be a better way to approach this... is the Microsoft model of FM development so bad? Is it better to lock all the FM data down and not please some in the community.

Every add-on plane in the world will make no difference to folks who question the accuracy of planes that are already in the game.

Take care, Goshikisen



----------------------------------

You've been chosen as an extra in the movie adaptation of the sequel to your life.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:18 PM
I sometimes wonder, with all the FM debate going on, if it wouldn't have been better to allow folks to somehow input their own data for aircraft. I know this would open up the IL2 world to all kinds of questionable performance... but it would also give the honest folks out there (squadron mates and whatnot) the ability to go with the data that they feel best represents the capabilities of an aircraft.

Over the last couple days I've noticed a good number of posts in which folks seem to have resigned themselves to the fact that the flight model for their favorite aircraft may never be right. This is a bad sign... if we just decide to settle for what has been given to us, whether we think it's correct or not, it probably means that this game is already on the downward slide to the shelf in the closet with all the other old flight sims.

Would interest in IL2:FB be maintained for a longer period of time if people felt they could get the most realistic performance from their aircraf? If Oleg and his team aren't able to open up the FM to the average user... is there some general performance data that we can use that would make everyone happy (manufacturer's data vs. post-war evaluation, etc.) What would renew people's faith in the modelling of these aircraft?

I didn't realize that FM could be so subjective... and I see many disappointed people on the boards these days. I just want this game to be the best it can be... and I'd like to think that objectivity would guide the design of the IL2 aircraft. If it doesn't then we might as well be playing Crimson Skies...

There has to be a better way to approach this... is the Microsoft model of FM development so bad? Is it better to lock all the FM data down and not please some in the community.

Every add-on plane in the world will make no difference to folks who question the accuracy of planes that are already in the game.

Take care, Goshikisen



----------------------------------

You've been chosen as an extra in the movie adaptation of the sequel to your life.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:18 PM
SACRILEGE!!!!!!

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:27 PM
Locked = GOOD
Unlocked = CFS rampant cheat heaven. (Even 'stock' setting isn't a hinderance to UFO FMs in CFS).

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:35 PM
I'd have to say locked FM because of what FB is all about. It was not intended as arcade style sim from the outset, it was intended to be the definative prop sim period.

It has achieved that, though not in perfection. The core of the game is sound and people know it which is why you see so much debate on everything. In a way it makes many people need to see planes modelled how they feel is correct because at least for the time being this is as close as we're going to get.

Unlocking the FM's has a few attractions but opens up a world of doubt and uncertainty. Right now the claim has been made that there is no way to cheat in this game which I find to be unrealistic as a whole...but while we all see things here and there that fall in line with what we know is possible for cheating in online gaming, if one were to open up the FM's there would be no telling how bad things would get online. Right now any possible cheating going in is at a minimum for sure and if it does exist is definately so rare that we can fly with confidence on any server...giving acccess to the FM will blow that away and will severely damage the game's credibility.

Consistency is a big deal online and in many ways is what makes or breaks games. Look at how people always gravitate to the fastest and least laggy servers in any game...they want consistency to be able to play the game 'correctly' without things being complicated by lag or warping. People also depend on consistency in this game too, they have to be confident that their plane performs as expected otherwise they will not be successful online.

In my opinion, while I do not think we have a perfect sim we do have one that is consistent and predictable performance wise. I may not like this or that feature about my favorite plane but it's the same this or that everytime I fly it. I can compensate for whatever perceived flaws that my plane has.

To me, though not perfect, it is consistent. For all of FB's 'flaws' it is difficult to imagine flying anything else and imho it's still by far the best prop sim on the market.

I believe that a strong factor in that is the locked FM's.



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:39 PM
I agree with the other fine gentlemen.

CFS series were lacking, but it wasn't bad.

It turned plain foul, the moment the 'mods' and 'custom planes' began to arrive.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:42 PM
kweassa wrote:
-
- I agree with the other fine gentlemen.
-
-
- CFS series were lacking, but it wasn't bad.
-
-
- It turned plain foul, the moment the 'mods' and
- 'custom planes' began to arrive.
-
-
-
-
-
------------
- Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns
- to..
-
- "It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and
- proud of it!



Have to agree...the add ons that are available for CFS series are fun, but you can't play online with all the mod planes and cheating going on.
And on-line is where all the fun is.
Haven't once played CFS2 on line since getting Il-2 and FB running. Love the planes of CFS but it's no fun flying on-line against the uber-cheats. AND THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM!

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg


"Death before Unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:13 PM
Unlock the FM and this would be just like CFS with better graphics. 1000mph P-11's with 100 forward firing Mk108's. Its way to easy to add a few extra horses or lighten the plane a few hundred pounds. I think I would like to see the FM's locked. That also applies to the DM's. They could open the maps for different terrain. There were some pretty neat maps made for CFS. Just be patient on the FM, as bad as I hate to say it, one day it will be cracked open and then all hell will break loose. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there intent on doing just that.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:17 PM
The best is no FM at all. Just have the game engine calculate what it should be in real time like x-plane.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:28 PM
BOPrey wrote:
- The best is no FM at all. Just have the game engine
- calculate what it should be in real time like
- x-plane.
-
-

I completely disagree.

I like having more than one plane in the game with guns, damage modelling and graphic extras too. With a realistic physics engine like X-plane we would have to be content with strafing trees for another 10 or so years.

Oh, and leave the FM locked, this should be obvious to anyone. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center>http://members.rogers.com/4xtreme/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:37 PM
Unlock it, and you get Camels flying at Warp 9.

Oops.....that's Red Baron.

Leave it locked

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:40 PM
Unlock it because Oleg is not God and his FM AND DM are off. Way off in some cases.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:16 PM
It seems Oleg is not just changing "FM" input in a panic, like the Noob above wants in on. Oleg make change over the Maths too, which the Noob above does not want to input anything on, let alone learn about 2+2.

Interestingly, the issue of lookup table has not been posted yet here, as it is not relevant to cheating (Surprise /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). If Oleg can keep his own personal FB lookup table a Secret, it may allow simming Eastern Front over the whole Map without, waiting for 133GHz Athalon 64 from AMD Dresden.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:20 PM
Oh I see so new people here are not allowed to state what they think about things without being attacked and called names. Great.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:21 PM
Locked.

I also dont't care if the planes do not fly 100% accurate, according to all the proper factory figures. Real life pilots also had to take their aircraft the way it was.

I don't even know if the physics engine of Oleg allows to put in data like the way it goes with CFS.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:24 PM
COUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!

your joking right ?

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:34 PM
I screwed up a little Apologies Black_P

I see some here are low post count Newbies, not to be confused with high post count Noobs bored with FB. Apologies. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BlackPhenix::
-- Oh I see so new people here are not allowed to state
-- what they think about things without being attacked and
-- called names. Great.


Too be honest, I too would not wish to input new Maths, recompile my FB libraries for each aircraft FM if that how it works I dunno. I am Happy not knowing about 2+2 either, just swirling the stick around like all Newbie trained pilots were told about before being tossed into frontline (that was then this is now).

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:40 PM
locked - if people spent as much time learning to fly the current fm's instead of debating over them, we'd have some great pilots out there.


unlocked:
Join server 1 : mismatch error.
Join server 2 : mismatch error.

Goto dev site: download version 1.35245 put it in /aircraft003 folder, put file adfa.cfg in folder /aircraft0005 folder. Add 3 lines in your conf that enable and don't forget to put file lalal.gif in your xyz folder.

Join server 3 : mismatch error
Join server 4 : wrong dll version .345346


etc...

That sound like fun?

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:46 PM
I think the people of the commmunity would get FMS accurate in 1-2 days unlocked

seems with all the different testing charts each ones resulting in slightly different statistics should all be rounded off to make it fair.

But I have to go for locked, seeing what happened in the cfs series

1%s very realistic

area51 total garbage


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:50 PM
Hmmmm lets see what can I build /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ill take some ME262 jet engine on a BF109K4 Airframe
and mk108s with Muzzle velocity and accuracy of the yak3 mgs...

also id like to have turning capabilitys of I16 and the body of Arnold Shwartzienhager so I wont black out much...

also id like to have acceleration of topfuel dragsters with my order........


Hmmm I just know im forgeting something.......


O ya I need Shiney Rims with lo-Pros on my new Ride /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

you must be insane for even making this post

You get the RBJ Insane Post of the day award

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>



Message Edited on 09/13/0310:56AM by cozmo_d

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:54 PM
Guys. Open source does not mean bogus cheat city. Get with the times and stop living in the past. lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

See http://www.targetware.org for details. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:02 PM
I say keep it locked. There, I've said it.

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/110903-Newsig.jpg.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:07 PM
Targetware created content and player-created content to work seamlessly together while making hacking and cheating very difficult.



He sayes very difficult not imposible /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Has anyone tryed this sim Targetware ?




<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:34 PM
The only reason there is a locked versus unlocked debate at all is due to the online community and the well-founded fear that there'd be cheating. Too bad, since most of us fly offline. I hate online flying and couldn't care less about their problems. For offline fliers, having the ability to modify the planes the way we want them would be a god send!! I'd start off by restoring the 262 to it's former and more realistic glory and put some big hairy balls back on the late 109 series. They are flying pigs as currently modelled. In reality, the 109s later than the G2 would fly closer to the G2s abilities, despite being a hair heavier. And they'd all be faster than they are now, more like the way they were in FB version 1.0

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755





Message Edited on 09/13/03 04:38PM by mortoma

Message Edited on 09/13/0304:39PM by mortoma

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:40 PM
Blitzpig_DDT, that is an interesting site. Targetware says it allows "official" and user created aircraft to operate seamlessly together online. But who determines which user created aircraft version is correct? While a couple of enterprising souls might actually create an FM close to reality, the vast majority of "contributors" would no doubt amp up their rides out of ignorant enthusiasm for their favorite planes, or out of deliberate tweaking for a non-historical competitive edge.
Even the knowledgeable posters on these forums often have irreconcilable differences of opinion regarding a particular aircraft's performance. This is often due to looking only selectively at available data, and the selection process is usually biased towards data that supports their preconceptions or pumps up a favorite aircraft. I suspect even the engineers posting here (including me) would have a hard time doing a better job of accumulating data and using it to code an accurate FM. The Il-2 FM's will never perfectly replicate the aircraft in the game, but opening the code would result in loosing any benefits (like +30% on the P-47D-27's roll rate) in a sea of UFO's created by those either dishonest, ignorant, or both.
Black Phenix, I understand LEXX_Luthor's response to your first post. I don't want to stifle your opinion, but when you post stating that Oleg's version of the FM is off, and often way off, without offering any elaboration as to how it's off or what in your background allows you to determine this, you sound like a whiner. With as many different flyable FM's as we have, Oleg's crew has done a pretty good job IMHO. There are still errors in the code, some obvious (gauges that don't work) some not so obvious (La-7 overheating, 190 seating position, D-27 roll rate etc.)
Oleg and his crew have bias' (we all do.) Compared to most of those posting though, iC represents a relatively unprejudiced engineering viewpoint when it comes to making decisions regarding aircraft performance (to those disagreeing with this statement, does your disagreement make you more or less biased?) I think that leaving the FM in their hands is infinitely better than turning the FM over to the hands of the community, who as a whole has shown itself to be extremely biased, and often ignorant.


Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:42 PM
Blitzpig_DDT, that is an interesting site. Targetware says it allows "official" and user created aircraft to operate seamlessly together online. But who determines which user created aircraft version is correct? While a couple of enterprising souls might actually create an FM close to reality, the vast majority of "contributors" would no doubt amp up their rides out of ignorant enthusiasm for their favorite planes, or out of deliberate tweaking for a non-historical competitive edge.
Even the knowledgeable posters on these forums often have irreconcilable differences of opinion regarding a particular aircraft's performance. This is often due to looking only selectively at available data, and the selection process is usually biased towards data that supports their preconceptions or pumps up a favorite aircraft. I suspect even the engineers posting here (including me) would have a hard time doing a better job of accumulating data and using it to code an accurate FM. The Il-2 FM's will never perfectly replicate the aircraft in the game, but opening the code would result in loosing any benefits (like +30% on the P-47D-27's roll rate) in a sea of UFO's created by those either dishonest, ignorant, or both.
Black Phenix, I understand LEXX_Luthor's response to your first post. I don't want to stifle your opinion, but when you post stating that Oleg's version of the FM is off, and often way off, without offering any elaboration as to how it's off or what in your background allows you to determine this, you sound like a whiner. With as many different flyable FM's as we have, Oleg's crew has done a pretty good job IMHO. There are still errors in the code, some obvious (gauges that don't work) some not so obvious (La-7 overheating, 190 seating position, D-27 roll rate etc.)
Oleg and his crew have bias' (we all do.) Compared to most of those posting though, iC represents a relatively unprejudiced engineering viewpoint when it comes to making decisions regarding aircraft performance (to those disagreeing with this statement, does your disagreement make you more or less biased?) I think that leaving the FM in their hands is infinitely better than turning the FM over to the hands of the community, who as a whole has shown itself to be extremely biased, and often ignorant.


Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif


Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif
Edit: sorry for the double post. The site's acting up again.

Message Edited on 09/13/0310:44AM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:00 PM
I suppose what I'm getting at is allowing the honest folks out there tweak the game the way they'd like and either play offline or with people that they trust. The cheaters don't care to play honestly to begin with... so you confine your online enjoyment to like-minded, honest individuals.

If a good number of folks out there are discontent with this aspect or that aspect of, for example, the FW190... then there's little point in calling it an FW190. It doesn't perform like an FW190 so its relation is in name only. A previous poster mentioned that pilots had to make do with whatever they had and that not all FW190's performed alike (I heard that production Ki-84 Hayate's were way off the manufacturer's specs due to inconsistency in production quality) but, at the same time, there had to be a general performance envelope that most of them adhered to.

Is there a way that a general consensus on performance can be reached so that most can be happy? My idea of the open FM was merely one way of addressing this issue.

Regards, Goshikisen

p.s. - funny comments about "Noobs"... I'll bet I've been lurking on this board far longer than many of the 1000 or more posters. Volume of posted messages isn't the only thing that makes one a veteran... a pilot can shoot thousands of rounds of ammunition and not hit the broad side of a barn.

----------------------------------

You've been chosen as an extra in the movie adaptation of the sequel to your life.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:44 PM
What about a module or something that ,when added to the game ,allows a player to modify the flight model in a limited fashion .More of a fine tuning really it could be a system of points allocated to varibles such as engine power, roll rate or armor with a maximum limit to its effect perhaps depending on the aircraft type .This may kind of simulate a pilot and his/her mechanic setting up the plane in different configurations ,trying different components or parts etc.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:58 PM
Cannot believe thread is still alive. LOCK that flight model and keep it locked!!! If there were no on-line capability then fine who cares!

I will live with what Oleg gives me warts and all!

There is really nothing out there that even comes close to FB. I still fly IL-2 as I have some downloadeded some really good campaigns that I am still flying!!!



Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:21 PM
Blotto and Cosmo. Thank you for at least looking at and thinking about the other possibilities. The overwhelming majority of these other tools are so rooted in the past they can't even think about anything else. Really sad.

However, it's my understanding that the user created add ons go through a sanctioning body within the makers of the mod. Target Rabaul for example is not affiliated with Sickware in any way, it's just using the Targetware engine.

There is version checking in the client that makes sure that everyone is on the same version. Much like how FB does it. Which is why everyone needs to be on the same patch level, and why many of us are forced into crappy patches even though we preferred an older, more realistic one. To play online, we need to be current.

Also, check out the forums for Target Rabaul. Those guys are just as, if not fanatical than this community on subjects of accuracy. They are planning to push realism farther than Oleg has too, based on what I've read. If someone makes a crappy mod to cheat, or out of ignorance, it would not survive the community. Trust me. lol To say nothing be being "sanctioned".

It's also easy to make sure that you only play with people who are in the version you are (thanks to the aforementioned version checking). And finally, TR is a persistent online universe, that means that everyone uses only official modules for that stuff. Granted, that is not what FB is about. But it is possible to be open, accurate and cheat free. Which is the point I was trying to make.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:22 PM
Unlocked would be million times worse!

<center>
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2cb22/KosSig.gif

America: #1 military...#15 in literacy...
Because right wingers run our military
and leftists run our schools!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:28 PM
Oh for the love of.....

Hey, EVERYONE who wants them locked. WHY would open be so bad? Provide something more than "it'd be EVIL!"

Come on, and don't forget to show your work.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:40 PM
CFS2:

http://www.hans-egebo.dk/images/xw1.jpg


-LO!

<p align="center">
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/o/lordoliver/forum_misc/LOsunset.jpg </img>

Wir sind die schwarzen Husaren der Luft,
Die Stukas, die Stukas, die Stukas!

--------------------------------------------

LordOliver -> StG77_Ollie
StG-77 Interim Website (http://members.fortunecity.com/stg77/headquarters.htm)
My personal page (http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/o/lordoliver/)</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:54 PM
Ok, that is funny. But, you are missing the point.

Let's take this from a different angle. How is it that you think IL2/FB keeps the FMs locked?

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:55 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Oh for the love of.....
-
- Hey, EVERYONE who wants them locked. WHY would open
- be so bad? Provide something more than "it'd be
- EVIL!"
-
- Come on, and don't forget to show your work.
-
-

How the heck would you regulate what FM/DM was being used at any one time while flying online? Sure you could get a flag that says, a different FM/DM is being used than original, but allowing people to change the planes, based on their opinion of how it should be, is a powderkeg waiting to explode.

The FM/DM is coded and protected to maintain the proper intended balance of Forgotten Battles. Opening this up to the public, opens up a can of worms that even the worst fisherman can catch fish with. Having the FM/DM controlled only by the developer ensures the quality of each plane and ensures that the balance, as intended by the developers, stays in place.

Now, of course there are issues with certain FM/DMs in FB. There were issues in IL2, as well. However, I feel that by the last patch, IL2 was pretty well-balanced and any good pilot could make any of the planes perform with success.

IMO, we have a few overheat issues, a little FM/DM tweaking needed and a few mission, campaign and or routine gameplay bugs that need fixing. I have the utmost confidence that most issues will be corrected as the game evolves.

Opening up the FM/DM code would be a travesty of justice and would undermine every ounce of hard work that Oleg and his team have put into giving us THE BEST WWII FLIGHT SIM ever. My .02

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:05 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- How the heck would you regulate what FM/DM was being
- used at any one time while flying online? Sure you
- could get a flag that says, a different FM/DM is
- being used than original, but allowing people to
- change the planes, based on their opinion of how it
- should be, is a powderkeg waiting to explode.

I don't understand this thinking.

How does Linus Torvalds control what is in the Lunix kernel?

There is "official" and there is unofficial. Simply have the client handshake with the host and determine that all important files match. The host can decide to be official or not, and the client has to match in order to connect.

By default, "official" things carry more weight than unofficial as well, so there is human nature helping out a bit there as well.

See the question I asked above your post please. And also see the FS-SDOE and Target Rabaul communities (forums).


- The FM/DM is coded and protected to maintain the
- proper intended balance of Forgotten Battles.
- Opening this up to the public, opens up a can of
- worms that even the worst fisherman can catch fish
- with. Having the FM/DM controlled only by
- the developer ensures the quality of each plane and
- ensures that the balance, as intended by the
- developers, stays in place.

"balance"? How can reconcile accuracy with balance? Only by carefully choosing and restricting the planeset. But that isn't historical. If you provide historical planes but "balance" them, then you are making arbitrary changes and it is no longer accurate in anyway.

I think this concept of "game balance" is why so many planes are screwed and why we have such problems in this community. (and I use that term lightly. lol)


- Now, of course there are issues with certain FM/DMs
- in FB. There were issues in IL2, as well. However,
- I feel that by the last patch, IL2 was pretty
- well-balanced and any good pilot could make any of
- the planes perform with success.

There's that term again. It has no place in a "simulation". It only has a place in games like Crimson Skies.

And there are a myriad of FM problems introduced with 1.11, and many more left un-addressed.


- IMO, we have a few overheat issues, a little FM/DM
- tweaking needed and a few mission, campaign and or
- routine gameplay bugs that need fixing. I have the
- utmost confidence that most issues will be corrected
- as the game evolves.

I'm reminded of the bumpersticker/all-around-good-saying : If you aren't pi$$ed off, you aren't paying attention. lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- Opening up the FM/DM code would be a travesty of
- justice and would undermine every ounce of hard work
- that Oleg and his team have put into giving us THE
- BEST WWII FLIGHT SIM ever. My .02

Pure conjecture. Based on, apparently, nothing at all. Fear mongering, nothing more. Doesn't even being to broach the subject in the way I asked.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:27 PM
So, you would propose to have countless versions of FMs out there, deemed "relevant" by some committee, made up of non-pilots, non-engineers and people who get most of their information from the web?

Why? Why have so many interpretations of one FM?

I would bet that Oleg and his crew have access to many more actual documents and historical facts than them. IMO, Target was also part of the ruining of Jane's WWII Fighters for online play. There was no way to tell what anyone was flying after all that sh*t hit the fan. Destroyed any form of online competition and now you want to split this group into varied fragments, based on what they believe the FM/DMs should be? Doesn't bode well for the future of online competition.

I say balance because, regardless of the FM/DM bugs that exist now, it's a quality product with a structure that is intended on keeping the FMs and DMs as the developers intended. Personally, I can use any plane in FB within it's strengths and weaknesses and I seem to have no problem being successful. Whether it be 109s, FWs or Yaks. If I fly the plane the way it was intended to be flown, every plane is deadly.

We don't always agree with him and his crew, and we even go to great lengths to prove certain aspects of the FM/DM are wrong, providing data, facts..etc. Oleg listens and has incorporated many, many suggestions from this community into FB.

I just don't see how allowing open modification of the flight models can help the future of this game. Those secondary programs do not carry the type of encryption that FB's files do. They will be much more prone to hacking, as past Target FMs have been. I like the way there is only one version of this game out there and I like the fact that the game is constantly verifying what is being flown.

To me, opening the source code would open up more hacking than can be done now. Someday it may be a great feature when this game is old and done, but for now, it doesn't make one bit of sense when we have security and a game to be flown as it is intended.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:31 PM
Day when FM/DM will be unlocked...will be the last day for FB on my HDD. Simple as that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:38 PM
Second that, Ivan!!!

At least now we all have the SAME problems. Imagine how many different sets of problems start cropping up when every group of Tom, **** and Harrys can make their planes the way they "feel" they should be.

Besides, I remember at least five or six different versions of "Official" Target FMs for Jane's WWII and everybody flew different versions. Who's to say which is right? Again, opinion is most of what's being used on those FMs.

All opening up the code is going to do is splinter the community. At least now, we have ONE product and ONE set of FMs/DMS to rally around.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:53 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Day when FM/DM will be unlocked...will be the last
- day for FB on my HDD. Simple as that

Silly clown, you didn't show and reasoning behind your comments, much less your work. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:08 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- So, you would propose to have countless versions of
- FMs out there, deemed "relevant" by some committee,
- made up of non-pilots, non-engineers and people who
- get most of their information from the web?
-
- Why? Why have so many interpretations of one FM?

And so it starts. No you are making negative assumptions of people you don't know in order to fit your "chicken little" view.

Not to mention nobody said anything about multiple "versions". The developers would sanction and officialize the FM. If people wanted to use something different, it's up to THEM to do so. Are you just against freedom of choice or something?

Finally, www does not equate to false. Comments like yours indicate that anything on paper is good and anything on the web is bad. This also means that scanning in the "good" data from paper would make it "bad" by posting it to the web. lol


- I would bet that Oleg and his crew have access to
- many more actual documents and historical facts than
- them.

Oh yes, and we can see that so clearly by the constant and total changes to the FMs of certain planes, each time calling it "accurate", or the screw up of the 190 pit and insisting it's correct.

Please. Oleg isn't a god, and like all men he has an agenda. Unfortunately, even if you wish to not believe it, said agenda is not to make the most accurate sim ever made to date.


- IMO, Target was also part of the ruining of
- Jane's WWII Fighters for online play. There was no
- way to tell what anyone was flying after all that
- sh*t hit the fan. Destroyed any form of online
- competition and now you want to split this group
- into varied fragments, based on what they believe
- the FM/DMs should be? Doesn't bode well for the
- future of online competition.

What does Targetware, which is a flight sim physics engine, have to do with Janes?

Why do you so obstinately ignore the question I asked about how you think FB keeps the FMs locked and synced (the latter part being the most important)?


- I say balance because, regardless of the FM/DM bugs
- that exist now, it's a quality product with a
- structure that is intended on keeping the FMs and
- DMs as the developers intended.

Yes, "intended". And that doesn't mean "accurate" (or even for the best).


- Personally, I can
- use any plane in FB within it's strengths and
- weaknesses and I seem to have no problem being
- successful. Whether it be 109s, FWs or Yaks. If I
- fly the plane the way it was intended to be flown,
- every plane is deadly.

Yeah, and? When you people run out of arguments to defend your faith you resort to success on and offline. Success has nothing to do with FM accuracy. Nothing.


- We don't always agree with him and his crew, and we
- even go to great lengths to prove certain aspects of
- the FM/DM are wrong, providing data, facts..etc.
- Oleg listens and has incorporated many, many
- suggestions from this community into FB.

Such as? Such as the 190 view perhaps? The LaGG's UFO nature perhaps? The lack of e-bleed or heat buildup in the Laughin in IL2? Like the excessive e-bleed of the P-47? Like the roll rate of the D-27? lol! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Man, I'm sorry, but you really are not paying much attention here.


- I just don't see how allowing open modification of
- the flight models can help the future of this game.
- Those secondary programs do not carry the type of
- encryption that FB's files do. They will be much
- more prone to hacking, as past Target FMs have been.
- I like the way there is only one version of this
- game out there and I like the fact that the game is
- constantly verifying what is being flown.

1 version that you know of. The files are decrypted and reside in memory when playing the game. There is no other way to do it. The .sfs files were decrypted for IL2 Compare, and encryption is quite breakable.

I'll throw you a bone here. The real way FB maintains integrity is the client/server handshake I've mentioned here before. Targetware uses a similar system. That is the key. Make all the changed *you* want, doesn't mean they can be used online.

I'm curious, how much do you know about "hacking"?


- To me, opening the source code would open up more
- hacking than can be done now. Someday it may be a
- great feature when this game is old and done, but
- for now, it doesn't make one bit of sense when we
- have security and a game to be flown as it is
- intended.

Which all but proves what I have been saying. You are interested in 1 mans vision. Not accuracy. That, is a worshipper. And that explains it all I think.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:09 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Second that, Ivan!!!
-
- At least now we all have the SAME problems. Imagine
- how many different sets of problems start cropping
- up when every group of Tom, **** and Harrys can make
- their planes the way they "feel" they should be.
-
- Besides, I remember at least five or six different
- versions of "Official" Target FMs for Jane's WWII
- and everybody flew different versions. Who's to say
- which is right? Again, opinion is most of what's
- being used on those FMs.
-
- All opening up the code is going to do is splinter
- the community. At least now, we have ONE product
- and ONE set of FMs/DMS to rally around.

To rally around and suffer through. lol

You really don't get it. Or maybe refuse to get it. You will *not* have CFS with everyone using different FMs in the same online session if it's handled properly. And, contrary to what you want to beleive, it's more than possible to do it properly.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:11 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- crazyivan1970 wrote:
-- Day when FM/DM will be unlocked...will be the last
-- day for FB on my HDD. Simple as that
-
- Silly clown, you didn't show and reasoning behind
- your comments, much less your work.


Do i have to state obvious DDT? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:37 PM
OK, let me add my take on this issue. This sim is not table based. In a table based sim it is possible to create a spreadsheet such as what the 1% group uses in CFS, and then use published data to engineer the data tables required for the flight models. The sim (CFS and virtually all other combat and civilian flight sims) provides the physics model, to which the 3rd party developers usually do not have access, while the data that give each airplane its separate characteristics is saved in separate files that can be edited by the community. In some cases, such as Falcon 4.0, the community did get a hold of the source code, but even there virtually all flight model edits (for instance in the SuperPAK series) is done in the data with very few changes to the actual physics model. Some sims have this data hidden in the executable files or binary files, but the key here is that the data and the physics model is kept separate.

In IL-2, "data" makes up only a small portion of the flight models (according to what Oleg has posted on the forums and also stated in some private conversations I and others have had with him). The rest is hard coded into the sim, so that you cannot really separate the physics model from the individual flight models. In other words, to edit the FM's, you need access not only to the littlebit of data there is, but to the full physics model and FM source code, and you need to be able to re-compile with your edits in order to test it. So, 1C does not only have to "unlock" the flight models, but they would have to share their inhouse development tools and source with the 3rd party developers to allow them to edit the flight models. For these reasons, I highly doubt it will ever happen that someone outside the 1C team will be in a position to edit the flight models directly.

I think the closest we will get is for people to compile data (such as what SkyChimp did with the P-47 roll-rate), and then send it to the developer to use as he sees fit, or within what is possible due to time and priority constraints.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:48 PM
Targetware did not develop the add-on Target FMs used in Jane's WWII Fighters? If they are not the same company, my mistake.

As for how the encryption is maintained, of course I don't know the particulars, other than encrypted .sfs files that handshakes with others and verifies version online via the Client/host handshake. Yes, Targetware can do the same. But, why would I want to do it with another program, when the one we have does it fine and secure? Unless, of course, you know of modifying that is going on now....

Believe me, I don't think Oleg and his team are the endall of FMs and DMs and what can be properly modelled and what can't or even about marketing to the widest audience, but I'm convinced that I have a quality product in my hands that the developers are very closely inolved in.

Ok, so everything can't be EXACTLY what it was during WWII. I feel they've done a great job of incorporating what they could and will continue to develop other things. You talk of certain issues, but what about the ones that have been corrected? I see you don't mention any of those.

You say certain things aren't fixed, yet you can zoom around the boards and find ten other opinions about the same subject. I threw the personal flying experience in there to show that I don't feel the planes are that far off in overall balance, as a whole and it makes for a very competitive sim.

Yes, the Lagg3 DM is brutal right now, P47D-27 roll rate is like a slow roasted turkey turning on a spit, and the FW190 debate seemed to have quite a bit of spirit, but I thought Oleg set that straight with the pics I saw him post of factual FW pits. I may have to go back and read that one again.

There is always room for improvement and Oleg and his guys have been improving this game from the start. Issues will continue to be addressed and issues will continue to be resolved. Everybody has their favorite plane and when it changes after a patch, they're the ones to do the most whining about their plane.

You want to give people the opportunity to make their planes what they think they should be. Albeit, as "Official" Targetware FMs, but nonetheless anybody with the program can make their own mods and fly them in their group of like-minded individuals. This is what will splinter the community, on a far larger basis than just miniscule groups flying older versions of the game because they don't like the latest patch.

I never said anything on the web is bogus compared to paper. What I meant with that statement is that you can search the web and just like here at the forums, find ten different sets of flight data and opinion for the same plane. I feel that this game is not just 1 man's vision, but a compilation of visions from him, his staff, the aerospace engineers that were involved, real pilots, UBI and the community at large. I hope Oleg never releases the code.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:59 PM
Good info, Oryx. Good to know that the FMs DMs cannot be seperated from the flight physics...etc.

Back in Jane's WWII Fighters, the ww2.sqs file could be opened and changed and recompiled with a program that came out. Also, there was a nasty little program that would make a duplicate of the ww2.sqs file, but with all the mods you wanted. The lobby would see the one good file and pass it. While you could use the other ww2.sqs file to launch the game with.

HyperLobby incorporated certain file checks into the lobby, but that was being circumvented with backdoor IP connecting outside of the lobby and through the program that made an extra ww2.sqs file.

I just don't want to see this fine game follow the same dark path as others before it have. The less publically-known about the way the game does FMs/DMs/Physics the better. We can still do as you said and present facts and hope things get changed for the better or for at least the betterment of the game.

Good post.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:16 AM
So, the long and short of it is, you are convinced that there is no way to prevent unauthorized mods, yet trust the FB system, even though they are really the same?

Using an older patch version is very much akin to modifying the data yourself. Try to connect.

What do you see as different here?

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:27 AM
Get your cheating ideas some place else!

Luckyboy = senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:43 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- Black Phenix, I understand LEXX_Luthor's response to
- your first post. I don't want to stifle your
- opinion, but when you post stating that Oleg's
- version of the FM is off, and often way off, without
- offering any elaboration as to how it's off or what
- in your background allows you to determine this, you
- sound like a whiner.

Whinner, give me a break, no one has whined more than you guys here in this forum.

"Unlock it because Oleg is not God and his FM AND DM are off. Way off in some cases"

That is what I said. Just take a gander at the post here and you see I am not the only person that has stated this. BTW, to go into the specifics of each item (The P-47's roll rate is 'STILL' off etc.) would be whinning. 'THAT' is why I didn't get specific. More than a few folks have echoed the current list of problems concerning FM and DM, no need for me to add anything more specific than has been mention already. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:50 AM
If you want to totally stuff this game up then unlock the flight models. The aircraft we have fly within "realistic" parameters..... e.g. no aircraft flies at 2000km/h.

BobCat

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:57 AM
Oh please...just unlock the FM and every collosal ***** will be flying around at WARP 6. This happens in the racing community all the time F1 Cars that do 600 miles an hour and are on rails. The hosts now have anti-cheat programs that makes sure all files are KOSHER! Sad but true people cannot be trusted.

It would be an utter disaster for the online folks. Given the proper testing and KICK tools well maybe. It won't happen unless someone cracks the files wide open.



Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:03 AM
I already have my Delta Flyer with Plasma Cannon, Photon Torpedoes and turbocharged impulse engines primed and ready.


For those with a more conventional taste I have redesigned the mk108 to use the 5000 kg bomb damage model and fitted it to a 1000kmh fw190 with the P11 turn model and no blackouts.

These uber craft will be available for download as soon as the FM becomes unlocked.

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:10 AM
LOL, This FM crap really cracks me up. All these actual WWII pilots in here want the actual planes I guess. Oh thats right, There arent any actual WWII pilots in here.

So, I guess all these experts must be aeronautical engineers......Yeah right!

I sure am glad this bunch wasn't the ones actually getting ready to fly these craft into war.

Flight Boss: " get your a$$ in that plane and fly to these coordinates to intercept inbound bombers"

New Pilot: "No way! This thing is a dog. The flight characteristics are nothing like the manual says, I ain't Going!"

Flight Boss: "well go tell that to (put any experienced pilot name here) who has 15 kills in this very plane."

New pilot: "forget it sir, I am not getting in that thing until this thing is exactly the way I think it should be."

We sure would be in sad shape right now, Thats for sure!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



PF-Coastie

<p align="center">http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/images/419x100phantomfighters01.gif (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/default.asp)

Coasties Place (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/)

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:14 AM
PF_Coastie wrote:
- LOL, This FM crap really cracks me up. All these
- actual WWII pilots in here want the actual planes I
- guess. Oh thats right, There arent any actual WWII
- pilots in here.
-



i think its people want something that has some resemblance to a world war II plane rather than the F18 that looks like a fw190 you will get with an unlocked FM

there are plenty of sims out there with planes that look like WWII fighters but are a cross between a fast jet and a pitts special why do we need more of them ?

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:21 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- So, the long and short of it is, you are convinced
- that there is no way to prevent unauthorized mods,
- yet trust the FB system, even though they are really
- the same?
-
- Using an older patch version is very much akin to
- modifying the data yourself. Try to connect.
-
- What do you see as different here?
-
-

No, I'm convinced there IS a way to prevent unauthorized mods with the current game we have, it's called encryption of the .sfs files and version check that exists.

Using an older patch isn't akin to modifying the data yourself. It's an extremely small bunch of people who don't like the current patch, so they run an older one that their plane performs the best in. A different version can't connect, granted, but do you not see how something like this would seperate the community on a much larger scale than the few small groups that fly older patches does now?

DDT, Name one game, where mods are allowed, that hasn't turned into a cheatfest.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:51 AM
SlickStick, thanks for taking time to read and engage the thought process. Even after we began to discuss and debate specifics, morons still roll in here spew "it'll ruin EVERYTHING! The sky will fall on us!" and leave.

WTF is wrong with people? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


SlickStick wrote:
- No, I'm convinced there IS a way to prevent
- unauthorized mods with the current game we have,
- it's called encryption of the .sfs files and version
- check that exists.

Encryption is not guarenteed. Look at De-CSS for example. Or the annual encryption breaking contests.

Thing is, brute force isn't necessary here because the files are decrypted prior to running. It's all in RAM.

The encryption merely makes it difficult for people to get in and change. The file check is what makes it difficult to use changed versions. That is the most important part. You could have a plane do anything you want, but, if I host, and I'm using the official version, you can't connect. So, what good does it do you?


- Using an older patch isn't akin to modifying the
- data yourself. It's an extremely small bunch of
- people who don't like the current patch, so they run
- an older one that their plane performs the best in.
- A different version can't connect, granted, but do
- you not see how something like this would seperate
- the community on a much larger scale than the few
- small groups that fly older patches does now?

It is akin to making your own mods. Look at it from a different perspective. The older patch version is not unlike a modified version. Really, it _is_ a modified version. The only difference is who modified it.

Let's say for example that you prefer to fly 109s. Let's say that you prefer 1.0's 109s (which were the most accurate, but n/m that now). If you could avoid the file check system, you could revert to 1.0 and try to connect online in you (by comparison) hopped up hot-rod 109s.

You have an issue here. As I understand it, all processing takes place client side and is merely coordinated by the server. Periodically the server will correct the positioning of everything to keep it all sync'd (the warpage you see).

If you are only sending control input across the wire to allow the other clients to process in parallel, recreating your flight path, you will have a situation like what happens to tracks after an upgrade. If you aren't hosting that game it will actually bite you in the arse I'd imagine.

That is, of course, assuming you could get around the file check in the first place.

Those 2 things are why I simply can't see the reason people are being so alarmist about this.


- DDT, Name one game, where mods are allowed, that
- hasn't turned into a cheatfest.

FS-SDOE. I'll go one better and name another - FS-WWI. http://www.openplanesims.com

Uses the OpenPlane engine, which, purportedly, Oleg considered using before deciding to do his own because OP is too processor intensive to allow all the planes and graphics he wanted simultaneously. SDOE was the first game to use the OP engine. It has long since died in it's original state. The community has taken it upon themselves to keep it current though and have damn near re-written the entire game. Birds of Prey uses a modified version of hte OP engine and is a spin of (of sorts) of the FS-WWI project/community, which is a WWI mode of SDOE.

There are 2 reasons it's not a "cheatfest" as you termed it. 1 is the community. A bunch of cool, mature, aviation nuts. A stark contrast to this community, I assure you. The other is the file check system. It ensures that everyone matches the host. No cheating as a result. They have official plane pack releases with official "versions" of FMs (when they get tweaked, happens, but not like FB). This helps keep everyone on the same version and not splintered as you fear. The file check just further ensures that.

Also, I'm not certian, but, if OP does client side processing like I hear FB does, you'd have the same problem. A "hacked" FM wouldn't buy you anything unless you hosted.


This community is already splintered. Simple rule of thumb, play only with those you trust. For me thats the BPs, the ACs, the VFC, the Jambocks, the IDC, and all the unaffiliated types that frequent the servers of the groups I just mentioned. (and probably more I am forgetting. lol)

Taking that a step further and using a different FM version is not much of a step.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:20 AM
DDT, the sky has fallen once, in other games.

Your personal loss of faith in the assumed 'biased' original developers are effecting your judgement, friend. However, such mods as experienced in countless other games of countless other genre clearly tell us that there is hardly any reason to believe an anonimous gamer/fan out there is to be more trustworty than its original developers.

Think of the new version of Murphy's Law of the internet:

"Whatever can be exploited, will be exploited"

Generally, the life expectancy and success rates of PC games, beginning from the late '90s, are dictated by its ability to offer a stabilized on-line gameplay which replaces former AI controlled opponents to opponents with a real living human being behind them.

'Mods' are offered when a certain game's life cycle has ended, and when a small group of fans who are determined enough to enjoy a game on-line, regardless of the fact it has gone out of the 'cycle', changes bits here and there to offer a small period of revitalization. To put it simply, mods are "the bounce of the dead cat", or "post-death muscle flexing" - last line of its attention span.

For a game which offers on-line playing, compatibility standards are always more important anonimous variety, because all gamers are to a certain extent, self centered. In a competitive environment, a 'preference' is determined by what kind of game will allow them to win. Thus, the single standard offered only by the developers, in essence, works like a 'referee', which constitutes the absolute boundaries and standards of the game. Whatever is within the standards, can be trusted, is coherent, and is unified.

However, once the standard breaks, then there is nothing that holds all the different individuals with different tastes, and different biases under check - you assume that the different tastes will bring out more variety, which is correct, but it also means the different biases will all be under action simultaneously.

The odds are, whatever mod you seek you will find biases which you do not like, and in the end you will begin to seek a certain type of a game which suits your own tastes. Everyone will seek their own, and thus, the term 'multiplayer', essentially loses all meaning. And when that happens, the game falls apart. The only thing that holds up a boxed-game market is the combination of better overall quality and a decent on-line game. When that balance breaks, nothing stands in the way of MMOGs simply trucking over the boxed-game market.

What happened to CFS1, CFS2 was just that. We should not assume variety automatically brings a richer game experience. A room full of trash, afterall, is 'variety' to some people.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 09/16/0301:21PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:03 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- SlickStick, thanks for taking time to read and
- engage the thought process. Even after we began to
- discuss and debate specifics, morons still roll in
- here spew "it'll ruin EVERYTHING! The sky will fall
- on us!" and leave.

I feel it's always good to engage in intelligent debate. It's how things get out into the public and then change, when needed. I'm learning tons from this thread and you are certainly presenting your side of the equation with much less hostility than you started out with./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Encryption is not guarenteed. Look at De-CSS for
- example. Or the annual encryption breaking contests.
-
- Thing is, brute force isn't necessary here because
- the files are decrypted prior to running. It's all
- in RAM.
-
- The encryption merely makes it difficult for people
- to get in and change. The file check is what makes
- it difficult to use changed versions. That is the
- most important part. You could have a plane do
- anything you want, but, if I host, and I'm using the
- official version, you can't connect. So, what good
- does it do you?

Well, to that I'd have to turn to Distributed Computing. AFAIK, that gateway rip-off cow hasn't cracked 128-bit encryption yet./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

From my understanding, yes, the data is in RAM, but the locations and contents are still encrypted to the point of not being able to open your RAM with a program and view which locations have what. However, then again, I put nothing past some of the real geniuses I have met in RL and on the net, when it comes to PCs.

- It is akin to making your own mods. Look at it from
- a different perspective. The older patch version is
- not unlike a modified version. Really, it _is_ a
- modified version. The only difference is who
- modified it.
-
- Let's say for example that you prefer to fly 109s.
- Let's say that you prefer 1.0's 109s (which were the
- most accurate, but n/m that now). If you could avoid
- the file check system, you could revert to 1.0 and
- try to connect online in you (by comparison) hopped
- up hot-rod 109s.
-
- You have an issue here. As I understand it, all
- processing takes place client side and is merely
- coordinated by the server. Periodically the server
- will correct the positioning of everything to keep
- it all sync'd (the warpage you see).
-
- If you are only sending control input across the
- wire to allow the other clients to process in
- parallel, recreating your flight path, you will have
- a situation like what happens to tracks after an
- upgrade. If you aren't hosting that game it will
- actually bite you in the arse I'd imagine.
-
- That is, of course, assuming you could get around
- the file check in the first place.
-
- Those 2 things are why I simply can't see the reason
- people are being so alarmist about this.

Mods can be very subtle and not so easily detected by the host server. Look at the Sxxxx Gxxx program, so many flyers use that program or programs like it to speed up their PC's O/S, but the shrewd ones only do it slightly or bind it to a hot key. Just like modders only have to slightly increase their planes with a 20km/h boost, or a bit better DM and so on to make it close, but always better than the same plane on the opposing side.

I hear what you're saying and I don't doubt that in certain controlled environments, modifications could be regulated like the actual game does with the code now. The part that is scary is that so many small groups would pop up, running their brand of FM/DM/Physics modeling, that the game would lose all cohesiveness, while still in it's infancy.

I don't want to have to fly only with individuals that I trust. I want the game to control who does what and how the planes are to be flown. That's why we have MAX LAG settings in the conf.ini file. Cheating was running rampant in IL2 and Oleg's crew put a stop to it. Now, if only hosts (not the cheating hosts, but the real hosts) would use those settings more often, we could cut down on a ton of warpage in this game.

I'm betting that a good majority of the freezing online is being caused by the use of this program causing the host server to have to "dump" a bunch of data to everybody, in order to catch up to the warper's data, whenever he comes out of one or slows his PC back down.

- FS-SDOE. I'll go one better and name another -
- FS-WWI. http://www.openplanesims.com
-
- Uses the OpenPlane engine, which, purportedly, Oleg
- considered using before deciding to do his own
- because OP is too processor intensive to allow all
- the planes and graphics he wanted simultaneously.
- SDOE was the first game to use the OP engine. It has
- long since died in it's original state. The
- community has taken it upon themselves to keep it
- current though and have damn near re-written the
- entire game. Birds of Prey uses a modified version
- of hte OP engine and is a spin of (of sorts) of the
- FS-WWI project/community, which is a WWI mode of
- SDOE.
-
- There are 2 reasons it's not a "cheatfest" as you
- termed it. 1 is the community. A bunch of cool,
- mature, aviation nuts. A stark contrast to this
- community, I assure you. The other is the file check
- system. It ensures that everyone matches the host.
- No cheating as a result. They have official plane
- pack releases with official "versions" of FMs (when
- they get tweaked, happens, but not like FB). This
- helps keep everyone on the same version and not
- splintered as you fear. The file check just further
- ensures that.
-
- Also, I'm not certian, but, if OP does client side
- processing like I hear FB does, you'd have the same
- problem. A "hacked" FM wouldn't buy you anything
- unless you hosted.
-
-
- This community is already splintered. Simple rule of
- thumb, play only with those you trust. For me thats
- the BPs, the ACs, the VFC, the Jambocks, the IDC,
- and all the unaffiliated types that frequent the
- servers of the groups I just mentioned. (and
- probably more I am forgetting. lol)
-
- Taking that a step further and using a different FM
- version is not much of a step.

Two good examples, but two games that are even a tighter niche than FB. Games that have reached their end or cater to a smaller crowd, are prime candidates for these types of modifications. It keeps the interest peaked, of the die-hard fans, still involved with it.

I just don't feel that FB has gotten to that point yet. It's alive and thriving with, as you know, as many as 750+ online at HyperLobby during peak times. Add another 150+ (would be more if UBI would fix their gaming service) over at UBI and we have almost 1,000 people online playing FB during peak times.

I feel it's a heckuva lot easier to control a game with 1 group, rather than multiple groups, who may not be qualified to make such changes. At this time in FB's lifecycle and with sooooo much more coming, I think it's too early to begin opening this game to interpretation of the fans.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

Message Edited on 09/16/0302:05AM by SlickStick

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 10:08 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Day when FM/DM will be unlocked...will be the last
- day for FB on my HDD.


Sorry But I have to agree with this statment

Ive seen many sims ruined tottaly because hackers could crack the codes & alter the flight modles speed, Acell, Turn rates.....

I understand DDT tho there is wayes to have file matching servers if your sim & chek for mods We kinda have that now like if you have the wrong patch it sayes sorry you cant play here without the right patch so somehow it knows your version this could be applyed to the unloked sim but Im still against it !!!

Altho I do agree the 109s are Messed up !!!!!

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 10:29 AM
Locked is the only way, unlees you want a cheaters haven like in CFS.I wont ever play a game agian that has a open FM

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG

Ride it like ya stole it.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:21 AM
Best of both worlds: unlock it, just use public cryptography to make sure the host and the clients are running the same game version and FM/DM set (host offers a public key, client calculates hashes of all data files, encrypts them, sends to host, host compares the hashes to its own, non-published hashes and either rejects or accepts the client). Should be easy enough to implement.


http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

Please fix (in order of importance): LaGG-3 durability, P-39 climb, MG151/20 ammo count in 109's, downgrade Rata a bit, fix G6 weight, give Emil's automation 200rpm more (now it keeps rpm's at 2300rpm with 110% throttle while 2500rpm is safe), downgrade 190 roll, change B-239 speedometer to metric system. More to follow, perhaps.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:24 AM
Werre_ wrote:
- Best of both worlds: unlock it, just use public
- cryptography to make sure the host and the clients
- are running the same game version and FM/DM set
- (host offers a public key, client calculates hashes
- of all data files, encrypts them, sends to host,
- host compares the hashes to its own, non-published
- hashes and either rejects or accepts the client).
- Should be easy enough to implement.

Edit: Of course the client could use some hackery to switch the FM/DM's after getting the green light from server. But this would be wayyyy more difficult.

http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

Please fix (in order of importance): LaGG-3 durability, P-39 climb, MG151/20 ammo count in 109's, downgrade Rata a bit, fix G6 weight, give Emil's automation 200rpm more (now it keeps rpm's at 2300rpm with 110% throttle while 2500rpm is safe), downgrade 190 roll, change B-239 speedometer to metric system. More to follow, perhaps.

fluke39
09-16-2003, 11:32 AM
BlackPhenix wrote:

- "Unlock it because Oleg is not God and his FM AND DM
- are off. Way off in some cases"


please note by quoting this i am not making a direct attack on you but rather using it by way of example....

forgive my rather limited knowlede on this subject - but if they are unlocked who is to say what flight model is right

true FM's are objective - but who knows what a true fm is? - beside god?

surely FM's are going to be subjective- each person will have his own view on how particular planes performed based on what reference material they have access to and even to an extent what the favourite aircraft is... and if this is the case why would "our" FM's be any better than olegs?

we have all seen countless debates on whether a certain plane's roll rate or climb rate is correct or not - and everyone seems to have their own opinions on the matter - so how would a constant be acheived?

i say keep them locked - oleg may not be god but he created this game - i believe he has got 90% of things right or as right as anyone could get them - so leave it that way i say and keep the door shut from countless more arguements.

<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:40 AM
If I want unlocked Fm's I would be playing Cfs2/3 instead.
Luckly i know this topic is a nonsence. Oleg will never allow that.



http://morrowind.host.sk/

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:24 PM
fluke39- I agree with you. We just have to keep it locked. There really is no other way to keep the HORDES of cheaters in check. That sucks I know, but that is the way it is. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Message Edited on 09/16/0306:25AM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:58 PM
kweassa wrote:
- DDT, the sky has fallen once, in other games.

Which 'other' games? CFS again? That's the favorite everyone loves to cling to. It didn't have any means of ensuring people were on the same version of anything. It's invalid as a comparison. I assume Janes is as well, but, I never played that online, I don't know anything about it's online set up.


- Your personal loss of faith in the assumed 'biased'
- original developers are effecting your judgement,
- friend.

Assumed bias? I don't think that much assumption is needed. Just look at all the problems. I can find about 5 threads in the ORR illustrating problems with LW FMs and vis, at least one of which shows something rather opposite (extreme advantage) for a VVS plane. And then there are all the "P-39 is overmodeled" thoughts and threads and postings floating around too. Hell, I'm not even mentioning the Jug so far. lol It's all too one sided and consistent to be mere coincidence.


- However, such mods as experienced in
- countless other games of countless other genre
- clearly tell us that there is hardly any reason to
- believe an anonimous gamer/fan out there is to be
- more trustworty than its original developers.

Other genre's don't really apply.

I honestly don't know how much time you spend participating or lurking in other fora, but, I was an active member of the SDOE community for awhile and lurked a lot in the Target Rabaul forums too. The level of dedication to detail is amazing. There are disagreements, but, general consensus rules the day. The people love planes and want them all to be modeled as accurately as the physics engine will allow. There was none of what we see going on here with Chimp and Milo attacking the 109 both to rip it apart and to indirectly attack fans of that plane who are themselves merely trying to defend it from faulty preconceptions.

In spite of the kindergarten nature of this community I remain convinced that quality work would emerge if it were only allowed to. Problems would be addressed, acknowldged and corrected. And yes, as a result I must say that they would indeed be more trust worthy than the developers.

If some rabid fans, or RBJ types wanted to make an X-Wing, those mods would be discovered and talked about so as to be avoided.

Given that this would all be predicated on a client-server model with the server dictating what the clients need, the "cheating" of CFS and it's ilk wouldn't be "possible" (quotes because anything's possible, it's even possible to cheat here, but, it would be far more difficult that it'd be worth).


- Think of the new version of Murphy's Law of the
- internet:
-
-
- "Whatever can be exploited, will be
- exploited"

But, anything can be exploited. That's the problem.


- For a game which offers on-line playing,
- compatibility standards are always more important
- anonimous variety, because all gamers are to a
- certain extent, self centered. In a competitive
- environment, a 'preference' is determined by what
- kind of game will allow them to win. Thus, the
- single standard offered only by the developers, in
- essence, works like a 'referee', which constitutes
- the absolute boundaries and standards of the game.
- Whatever is within the standards, can be trusted, is
- coherent, and is unified.

The key is for everyone playing to be "on the same playing field", right? That is what I'm advocating, just not necessarily Oleg's playing field. We don't need the developer to lock us in to something inorder to get that level playing field.


- However, once the standard breaks, then there is
- nothing that holds all the different individuals
- with different tastes, and different biases under
- check - you assume that the different tastes will
- bring out more variety, which is correct, but it
- also means the different biases will all be under
- action simultaneously.

Not necessarily. I think that there is a definite, even good, possibility that all the BS would cause the truth (or as close as we can get) to rise. People like Wastel, you, Oryx, Ugly Kid, etc, will illustrate problems with certain talked about mods. People will begin to slowly understand and reject those that are incorrect. Only the most hardcore frenzied fanatics will blindly stick to outrageous FM mods. Over time the majority of people will be on the same mod or rev.

Also, units will tend to stick to 1 rev as well. Many units may choose the same rev to maintain compatibility, and leagues will also dictate revs to use. I don't see it devolving into everyone playing single player for a month then putting it on the shelf.


- The odds are, whatever mod you seek you will find
- biases which you do not like, and in the end you
- will begin to seek a certain type of a game which
- suits your own tastes. Everyone will seek their own,
- and thus, the term 'multiplayer', essentially loses
- all meaning. And when that happens, the game falls
- apart. The only thing that holds up a boxed-game
- market is the combination of better overall quality
- and a decent on-line game. When that balance breaks,
- nothing stands in the way of MMOGs simply trucking
- over the boxed-game market.

I disagree here. Boxed Games are able to be very different from MMOGs. Unfortunately, they have still done irrevocable damage. What happend to games like the Tex Murphy Series, the 7th Guest/11th Hour, Shivers2, Phantasmagoria, etc (I could go on forever naming titles from my collection lol)? They have all but died. Seems the market is racing games, F/TPs's, "RPGs" (no video game can ever really be an RPG, but then, I'm an old school gamer. lol), sims (of all kinds, inlcuding the Sims), and on-line things like Ever-crack and SWG.


- What happened to CFS1, CFS2 was just that. We
- should not assume variety automatically brings a
- richer game experience. A room full of trash,
- afterall, is 'variety' to some people.

What happened to CFS could not happen under what I am proposing. Between version checking and client side processing and host coordination, it just wouldn't work (to run your own FM ala CFS, unless you were hosting).

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:26 PM
The #1 thing I like about this game is that there is no way to cheat, no aimbots no speed hacks, no changing performances on planes.

I come from the fps games, things got out of hand there, don't let it happen here.

Take no chances, keep it locked.

http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:35 PM
Locked FM keeps the playing field even. Good, bad, indifferent all are on equal footing.

Doesn't that sound better?



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/p47atm.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:51 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- I feel it's always good to engage in intelligent
- debate. It's how things get out into the public and
- then change, when needed. I'm learning tons from
- this thread and you are certainly presenting your
- side of the equation with much less hostility than
- you started out with.

Well, given the kind of replys these other tools (with a few exceptions of course) have been making, I had to give you credit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif heh heh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- Well, to that I'd have to turn to Distributed
- Computing. AFAIK, that gateway rip-off cow hasn't
- cracked 128-bit encryption yet.

All it takes is time and determination. No matter how many bits you have.


- From my understanding, yes, the data is in RAM, but
- the locations and contents are still encrypted to
- the point of not being able to open your RAM with a
- program and view which locations have what.
- However, then again, I put nothing past some of the
- real geniuses I have met in RL and on the net, when
- it comes to PCs.

I'm not aware of it being encrypted in RAM. That sounds like a bad idea, on the surface at least. Anything that is encrypted is no good to a program or process. It's just a jumble of intellegible data, only good for storage. To use that data, it must be decrypted. To do this on the fly for vital data (that which is in RAM) would require both light encryption and massive amounts of CPU cycles. It would really eat into the processing power available for graphics, network, and FM/DMs.


- Mods can be very subtle and not so easily detected
- by the host server. Look at the Sxxxx Gxxx program,
- so many flyers use that program or programs like it
- to speed up their PC's O/S, but the shrewd ones only
- do it slightly or bind it to a hot key. Just
- like modders only have to slightly increase their
- planes with a 20km/h boost, or a bit better DM and
- so on to make it close, but always better than the
- same plane on the opposing side.

This comes down to how the file check system works. If it merely checks date, that's easy. If it checks date and size, that too is easy for ultra-subtle changes, but, not too many could really be done in that case. If it runs a hash check it gets even more difficult to get away with any changes. It could even go all the way and do a bit by bit comparison. It would take much longer to connect, but, you'd be hard pressed to beat that system.

I won't say it's impossible, but, even FBs system doesn't make cheating impossible. Just difficult.

However, the final link in the chain is the processing. To keep net traffic down you could send nothing more than input commands, damage data, and occasional sync data (and some other misc data). This puts nearly all processing on the client side. So each person is almost playing an offline game. By sending their input commands as well as DM calculation results and periodic position data to the host, they host can ensure that all the other clients are playing the same offline game in parallel.

When it works well, the result is almost unnoticable lag and ability to play over a slow connection. (seems there is also some prediction built in for dealing with momentary lag and packet loss) There is a side benefit to this. If the inputs you send to your version of the FM create one result, they will create a different result in other players games. This could result in you colliding, crashing, or being shot down. How the host would sort that out, I'm not certain. But, it does make it virtually impossible to successfully "cheat" by using a different version of an FM or even DM (because again, another system registers you as blown up, sends that to the host. The host will most likely then cause you to detonate. lol).


- I hear what you're saying and I don't doubt that in
- certain controlled environments, modifications could
- be regulated like the actual game does with the code
- now. The part that is scary is that so many small
- groups would pop up, running their brand of
- FM/DM/Physics modeling, that the game would lose all
- cohesiveness, while still in it's infancy.

As I said to Kweassa, I don't see it happening. I think agreed upon standards would quickly arise. Not necessarily entire mods, but, certain planes. Group A might have nailed the P-47, and Group B might have gotten that royally screwed up, but, got the 190A4 dead on, and so on. Eventually these planes would be collected into 1 "patch". More and more people would use it and people would tweak individual planes. Over time, the standard would change to incorporate those improvements. A central authority isn't really needed at all. But, if there was one, it would certainly help (much like Linus Torvalds).


- I don't want to have to fly only with individuals
- that I trust. I want the game to control who
- does what and how the planes are to be flown.
- That's why we have MAX LAG settings in the conf.ini
- file. Cheating was running rampant in IL2 and
- Oleg's crew put a stop to it. Now, if only hosts
- (not the cheating hosts, but the real hosts) would
- use those settings more often, we could cut down on
- a ton of warpage in this game.

To each their own. I don't want to fly with total strangers because I can't presume to trust them. Seems that "stick stirring" among many, many other tricks are still possible to use to "game the game" RBJ style. Not to mention server settings. The groups I fly with I know (or at least feel confident) I can trust, and enjoy their server settings. It's a pretty wide group actually. in excess of 200+ I'd say. That's a lot of people, from all around the world. So I'm not really limited by doing so.


- I'm betting that a good majority of the freezing
- online is being caused by the use of this program
- causing the host server to have to "dump" a bunch of
- data to everybody, in order to catch up to the
- warper's data, whenever he comes out of one or slows
- his PC back down.

Freezing seems to be due to spawning. Host corrections are what results in warpage. The prediction algorithm (if there is one, I heard there is, and it would make sense to be there) seems to continue in control of the craft until it gets an update from the Host. Once the update is recieved, it might be that that plane is in a totally different position and it will just slide to it's corrected position without regard to physics.

Generally that is caused by lag and packet loss. The updated control data wasn't delivered to the client in time.


- I just don't feel that FB has gotten to that point
- yet. It's alive and thriving with, as you know, as
- many as 750+ online at HyperLobby during peak times.
- Add another 150+ (would be more if UBI would fix
- their gaming service) over at UBI and we have almost
- 1,000 people online playing FB during peak times.

No, but FB has other reasons for needing things to be opened. Not to mention the other benefits as well (we could have the P-51 by now, among others).


- I feel it's a heckuva lot easier to control a game
- with 1 group, rather than multiple groups, who may
- not be qualified to make such changes. At this time
- in FB's lifecycle and with sooooo much more coming,
- I think it's too early to begin opening this game to
- interpretation of the fans.

To be honest, I'd prefer Oleg to keep it in his hands, but to acknowledge the truth and present accuracy. He does neither. His deeds and words have shown him to have an agenda (I don't claim to know what it is, only that it is there and it is not to make the most accurate WWII flight sim ever made to date). He has also patently refused to acknowledge when he was wrong on many (granted, not all) things. This means we are stuck, suffering through his vision, and at his mercy.

If things were more correct and he was more willing to make changes where appropriate, and openened his data to show _why_ he makes a claim (basically if _he_ was more open), it would be much better I think. As that is not the case, opening the FMs is the next best option (provided the proper precautions were made of course).

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:59 PM
Werre_ wrote:
- Werre_ wrote:
-- Best of both worlds: unlock it, just use public
-- cryptography to make sure the host and the clients
-- are running the same game version and FM/DM set
-- (host offers a public key, client calculates hashes
-- of all data files, encrypts them, sends to host,
-- host compares the hashes to its own, non-published
-- hashes and either rejects or accepts the client).
-- Should be easy enough to implement.
-
- Edit: Of course the client could use some hackery to
- switch the FM/DM's after getting the green light
- from server. But this would be wayyyy more
- difficult.

Good point.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:06 PM
fluke39 wrote:
- surely FM's are going to be subjective- each person
- will have his own view on how particular planes
- performed based on what reference material they have
- access to and even to an extent what the favourite
- aircraft is... and if this is the case why would
- "our" FM's be any better than olegs?

I'd trust Chimp to do a proper FM for a US plane far more than I would Oleg. That's just for starters.

Why "our's" would be any better than Olegs is because we aren't hiding behind super-secret soviet documentiation that supposedly trumps all other data on the planet. As well as ohter points I already made in other posts above this.


- i say keep them locked - oleg may not be god but he
- created this game - i believe he has got 90% of
- things right or as right as anyone could get them -

Does this explain the 190 view? The lack of 109 proper climb? The P-47 roll? The P-47 e-bleed? The LaGG heat? The constant changing of FMs of certain planes like the 109 series?

He does all that and hides behind supposed secret "super-docs". It's cloak and dagger BS. It leaves everyone with the impression that he has no data, and doesn't really know what he's doing. (not saying that that is the case, it's just the impression it leaves)

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:33 PM
If original version is crap and developers are fired, then 3rd party mod can be launched.

But do we have any serious problem now?

Do You still want that crappy, incompatible and unauthentic 3rd party patch, 4th party patch,... 11th party patch etc?

"I can't connect to your game."
"Install XXXX patch."
"Where is that patch?"
"Go to xxx site."
"I can't install!"
"Read the f**king manual."
"S**t, ok, done! let's play."

"hey, you should install YYY texture patch for kicksass gfx."
"Ok. I found it! I installed but gfx is weird!"
"Your VGA doesn't support YYY texture patch."
"What should I do?"
"I dunno. Guy who made that patch disappeared."
"Damn, ok, uninstalled. Let's fly!"
"You can't fly with us because you didn't install that YYY patch."

We need authentic supervisor to play & communicate each other.
Oleg's knowledge, passion & experience qualifies him to do that job.

Smart guys, he's far beyond you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

=======================================
Athlon XP 2500+@3200+ (200*11)
DDR 512M (FSB 200)
GeForce4ti4200
MCP-T SoundStorm
7200rpm 60G HDD

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:49 PM
So, bottom line...because of small group of people who are not happy with FM, 5 years of work and joy for 1000`s of IL2 fans should be flushed down the drain? Don`t be so naive DDT, you are smart dude. While developer holds the code...game holds its value...ones it`s open for mass user...IL2/FB is done. Trust me, you will be right behind me uninstalling it...so are 1000`s of others.
People always cheat, human nature based on competition. Some dedicated their lifes to it lol and those who did...will sure as hell make another CFS out of FB... be sure! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:01 PM
I havent read the replies, but NO MODS!

I thought this post was going to be about whether Oleg should even bother changing the FM, not whether we should allow stinking mods!

I hate mods!

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:07 PM
While I may disagree with RayBanJockey on the issue of mods, I do agree that the flight model should be locked. Oleg has a clear vision for this game, and while the community making skins, missions and even new aircraft is all well and good...that seems enough for me... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:21 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- So, bottom line...because of small group of people
- who are not happy with FM, 5 years of work and joy
- for 1000`s of IL2 fans should be flushed down the
- drain? Don`t be so naive DDT, you are smart dude.
- While developer holds the code...game holds its
- value...ones it`s open for mass user...IL2/FB is
- done. Trust me, you will be right behind me
- uninstalling it...so are 1000`s of others.
- People always cheat, human nature based on
- competition. Some dedicated their lifes to it lol
- and those who did...will sure as hell make another
- CFS out of FB... be sure!

Come on Ivan. It's comments like this that sound "naive". It sounds like you didn't bother to read my posts. Ok, they aren't short, but that's no excuse. lol

The reasons people are against an open model are really only that they think it will be too open to cheating, and to a lesser extent, that it will fracture the community.

I've addressed both in depth and detail (and I even assumed that this could be called a "community" lol). Neither would be the case if done right. This *isn't* CFS, and the reason for that is NOT the encrypted and closed FM (not the sole or most important reason - the most important reason is the handshaking and, if I'm right, the particular use of the client-server model).

This 5 years of work you speak of, beyond visuals, wouldn't really be all that much of a loss. It's sad to say it, but......

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:28 PM
Oh i read your posts DDT, i`m not that lazy hehe. But still, i have a question to ya...if you hate current FM so much and think that those 5 years of work is nothing...please explain to me...why are you @HL every freaking night? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Enjoying sufferings of LW? Come on dude, you on my server every night and you see with your own eyes TOTALLY overmodeled and biased VVS is getting beaten into submission by completely undermodeled crappy LW craits. Say it aint so? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:34 PM
How can anyone, with a straight face, say that they want the FM locked?

The FM has changed drastically from one end to the other end of the spectrum since day one.

The real question is; who has the key?

One example of why customers may be driven to bypass the judgement of the developer, to get the key so to speak, is the 190 foward view issue.

"you is wrong" can be inadequate for some.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:36 PM
The only aspect of being locked is the dry spells of no new aircraft.

I could be really wrong, but hasn't the p51 been done for quite some time?

I can't stand CFS3, but I've seen all sorts of models get released by 1% group - B17's, etc...


I don't want that mess, don't get me wrong, however, I also think that this system causes things to take forever to get released.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:59 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- Please. Oleg isn't a god, and like all men he has an
- agenda. Unfortunately, even if you wish to not
- believe it, said agenda is not to make the most
- accurate sim ever made to date.

And just what "facts" do you have to support this?

Opening the FM/DM is a bunch of crap for a lot of reasons. The most obvious being a bunch of arcade gamer tweak-geeks turning the planes into UFOs.

And all this stuff about: "Well I have a chart that says this about that aspect of this plane's flight performance and so I should be able to change it 'cause dang it I know I'm right and the developers are wrong." How many times have we seen debates here about a plane's performance where tons of information is brought to bear for each side, all of it having the stamp of "official" all over it,and still it shows conflicting outcomes?

The "fact" is that for all the charts and stats anybody can compile nobody who hasn't flown these a/c knows feck all about how they acually performed even under ideal conditions much less field conditions.

Just because you can't modify a flight model, that doesn't mean there is some infringement on your freedoms. What a bunch of whining nonsense. Want that kind of "freedom"? Design your own sim with open FM/DM. Then you can settle FM debates in the virtual skies. Yeah, that'll prove who's right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:09 PM
LilHorse wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- Please. Oleg isn't a god, and like all men he has an
-- agenda. Unfortunately, even if you wish to not
-- believe it, said agenda is not to make the most
-- accurate sim ever made to date.
-
- And just what "facts" do you have to support this?
-
- Opening the FM/DM is a bunch of crap for a lot of
- reasons. The most obvious being a bunch of arcade
- gamer tweak-geeks turning the planes into UFOs.
-
- And all this stuff about: "Well I have a chart that
- says this about that aspect of this plane's flight
- performance and so I should be able to change it
- 'cause dang it I know I'm right and the developers
- are wrong." How many times have we seen debates
- here about a plane's performance where tons of
- information is brought to bear for each side, all of
- it having the stamp of "official" all over it,and
- still it shows conflicting outcomes?
-
- The "fact" is that for all the charts and stats
- anybody can compile nobody who hasn't flown these
- a/c knows feck all about how they acually performed
- even under ideal conditions much less field
- conditions.
-
- Just because you can't modify a flight model, that
- doesn't mean there is some infringement on your
- freedoms. What a bunch of whining nonsense. Want
- that kind of "freedom"? Design your own sim with
- open FM/DM. Then you can settle FM debates in the
- virtual skies. Yeah, that'll prove who's right.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seems I must've insulted your messiah given the amount of energy you poured into that one comment, completely ignoring everything else.

So typical of so many in this so-called "community". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:18 PM
DDT, I mentioned encrypted in RAM, because even though the .sfs data is in there, I thought that it's still stored in RAM in a way that secures what info is where and through the handshake it's verified. Meaning you would still need a program that would indicate which bytes in RAM held what data to be able to change only those locations that contained the data you wanted. Tough work, but I guess not impossible.

You make some good points that are very valid about mods being controlled the same way the game controls the physics now. You can't blame people for not wanting open-source or open-FM modeling, even in controlled environments. We've been burned before.

You mentioned Jane's, but an interesting thing about that is the only version checking that was being done was through HyperLobby. Very easy to circumvent. FB is much more secure and I'm sure mods based on the same security could work down the road.

I'm not the type to deny facts and you've presented some good ones, however, I have to stick by my gut feeling that "too many cooks spoil the broth". Having open-code would just create too many differing opinions about too many differing FMs. I still feel that having to debate only 1 set of FMs will keep this game stronger and more competitive for the good of ALL who want to play it, not just the die-hard WWII semi-fanatics.

It's hard enough for noobs to fly this game with 1 set of FMs/DMs....imagine if he had to wade through 10-12 sets of FMs/DMs because each group thinks their's is right? How to choose which is right for him? Which FM version should he fly? Is he to be constantly switching his FMs/DMs to keep up with the Jones'?

This type of modding is for a game that's dead or dying and has barely any new players coming in. Not for a young, robust game with in-depth developer support, FREE add-ons, planes, maps and not to mention, the best WWII prop sim ever created.

To me, having one government is better than having multiple factions, working mainly to overthrow the main government, because they do not feel that the government "got it right" the first time.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:25 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Oh i read your posts DDT, i`m not that lazy hehe.

Yeah right. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol


- But still, i have a question to ya...if you hate
- current FM so much and think that those 5 years of
- work is nothing...please explain to me...why are you
- @HL every freaking night?

Lack of anything better to do?

I guess I was a bit overboard with that comment, but I did phrase it in such a way as to indicate that there is some value to it, just not much. Certainly not enough to produce any kind of benefit over the alternative of an open model. Despite the fear mongering going on.


- Enjoying sufferings of LW? Come on dude, you on my
- server every night and you see with your own eyes
- TOTALLY overmodeled and biased VVS is getting beaten
- into submission by completely undermodeled crappy LW
- craits. Say it aint so?

Er....and what am I using (when opportunity allows)? lol

It's usually an even fight in terms of #s and kills from what I see.

Here's the sticking point. Just because a game is balanced, that doesn't mean it's not biased. In fact, it's more likely that by being balanced it *is* biased. Plus, when it comes to servers it's hard to make such judgements because plane sets are always limited in some form or antoher. (free the planes damn you! Let my planes go! I wanna shoot at commies with US planes! lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )

There is an awful lot of cases of poor modeling w/r/t LW planes, with them getting the short end of the stick in the process. Whereas planes like the LaGG get to never overheat. And just the general lack of logic too - the entire world had to make sacrifices in order to specialize, but not the soviets. Um...yeah, sure. Ok Oleg.


There are aspects of this physics model that are better than the alternatives I'm aware of, even if the FMs in particular are off. There is a sensation of flight not typically in other sims. There is the visual aspect of this game. And there is the little, non-flight related things - the DF server spawn system, use of multiple skins, and so on. Has nothing to do with the FMs or DMs at all but makes a big difference. And of course, there is the player base as well.

That's why I'm still here. Nothing better has come along yet. Thing to remember though is, even though this is the best (so far) in many regards, "best" does not denote "good". It is a comparative term, nothing more.



Not sure if I'll be around tonight or the next few days though, seems my kitty is having problems. The mod didn't go well. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Working with some people to try and get it sorted though.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:26 PM
Also, about the warpage, spawning and skin, mission, terrain download can cause this, but we're not talking about stutters, we're talking about:

Mr. XP3200, 9800PRO, 1024GB of RAM, cable modem with 52mS ping and he's jumping all over the screen to another cable player whenever he's in a defensive position, setting off the message left and right. Funny how it's always the same guys, the same situations, the same warping.

The game doesn't like the speed up/slow down programs that are being used and the extra long freezes are usually people using 3rd party programs to take rapid-fire screenshots like the old days.

Cheating is definite in FB and from some of the top flyers. However, the only cheating that is done is through packet loss and that is totally detectable with proper MAX LAG settings on the HOST server.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:55 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- Seems I must've insulted your messiah given the
- amount of energy you poured into that one comment,
- completely ignoring everything else.
-
- So typical of so many in this so-called "community".

Sorry, but I'm not one of those who conciders Oleg a god or "messiah". But I can't help noticing that there are alot of ppl here who insinuate that he has some sort of bias where sh!t like FM is concerned. These people and you don't have one shred of evidence or "facts" to support this. It doesn't matter what the changes have been. Or how consistent you perceve them to be. Accusations of bias are purely conjecture.

And I'll say again, because you can't mod a product that somebody else has created is not an infringement on your freedoms. Saying so is just whining.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 08:58 PM
DDT wrote: "Not sure if I'll be around tonight or the next few days though, seems my kitty is having problems. The mod didn't go well. Working with some people to try and get it sorted though."

Although, the Domo Kuns may feel differently, good luck with your kitty and I truly hope for a full recovery.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 09:25 PM
LilHorse wrote:
- Sorry, but I'm not one of those who conciders Oleg a
- god or "messiah". But I can't help noticing that
- there are alot of ppl here who insinuate that he has
- some sort of bias where sh!t like FM is concerned.
- These people and you don't have one shred of
- evidence or "facts" to support this. It doesn't
- matter what the changes have been. Or how
- consistent you perceve them to be. Accusations of
- bias are purely conjecture.
-
- And I'll say again, because you can't mod a product
- that somebody else has created is not an
- infringement on your freedoms. Saying so is just
- whining.

To the contrary, there is a *lot* of evidence, but, you choose not to see or beleive it, so re-pointing it out to you would be a waste of time. Therefore, I won't bother.

You sure seem to get your back up in defense of Oleg though. Clearly you have *something* riding on it (or at least think you do).